Rediscovering The Truth About Creation

Before getting started, one should note that the third and fourth questions will be considered in Chapter Eight, along with similar questions which pertain to the Big Bang theory. The first two questions, though, will be dealt with in this chapter.

This analysis begins by looking at a brief description of the Theory of Evolution that has been provided by Mr. H. G. Wells in The Outline of History! In his work, Mr. Wells did not commit himself either way to a particular position. He simply wrote that biologists, in general, think that life began in a warm sunlit, shallow water setting, in a lagoon-like environment. He also wrote that these same biologists say that those first life forms may have begun as slime, that the particular processes which led to their existence may have been very, very slow, and that the resulting forms essentially took on the distinctive qualities of life [1].

The Theory of Evolution maintains that certain conditions prevailed at a time in our past which were conducive to initiating life. The theory says that the first spark of life sprang up in a lagoon-like environment and that from that spark came the first one-celled animals. Then, over millions and perhaps even billions of years, this one-celled creature underwent numerous mutations, also known as self-improvements, and eventually became multi-celled life. Over even more time, the final results were even more mutations, the development of higher-ordered animals and then, of course, the development of human beings. According to many evolutionists, the ideal conditions which led to the creation of the first life forms perhaps only happened once. If they are correct, however, then once was obviously enough.

Mr. Charles Darwin was a leading proponent of the Theory of Evolution. Living during the Nineteenth Century, he wrote several books to explain his research into evolution theory, including The Voyage of the Beagle, The Descent of Man, and The Origin of Species.

In The Origin of Species, he explained how different species were developed, and in so doing, described how various species would have had to struggle to survive. He explained how that that struggle among themselves for survival would have led to the different mutations or self-improvements within a given species and then how that those improvements could have been passed on genetically from one generation to the next. The result from this struggle was that the newer species would have been even stronger genetically than the original, which would, then, have made the overall prospect for continued evolutionary success even greater [2]. This very important part of the whole process, where an already strong species mutates into a newer, stronger species, is the real backbone of the Theory of Evolution.

Mr. Darwin called the above struggle among species the "Survival of the Fittest." As he expressed it, those species which had had the greatest will and ability to live would have been able to inherit the necessary survival characteristics from their ancestors. This capability alone was, in his words, the essential ingredient which deemed them more "fit" to survive than others. After that, those species which had survived would be even better able genetically to survive by virtue of their own success. Over time, these life forms, again in his words, would have naturally become more pronounced, more stable, and even more able to survive.

At the same time that this survival process was being worked out favorably among those species which were able to survive, the weaker life forms did not get the same necessary survival characteristics from their ancestors, and they simply ceased to be! The whole basis or principle teaching behind evolution is that the stronger species survive while the weaker ones ultimately become extinct.

The Theory of Evolution sounds good and even seems somewhat reasonable. However, this belief is not without problems! Based on the theory, the first stage of life would have been the one-celled animals. Those first beings would have evolved to the next stage, then to the next, and so on. In time, life would have evolved to the level of the two lower vertebrae classes, which are the amphibians and fishes. Then, if the theory is correct, it would have evolved to the three higher classes, which are mammals, birds, and reptiles. Yet, according to Mr. Darwin, no one can explain how evolution from the lower vertebrae classes to the higher classes actually happened.

In the Descent of Man, Mr. Darwin reported that no person, at that time, had been able to identify the link between the lower vertebrae classes and the three higher classes [3]. In his own research, he had not been able to make the connection. He could not even show or demonstrate in a laboratory setting how one class of life might have evolved into or from the other. As a result, evolution theory had a significant shortcoming even in his day! This theory's inability to bridge the gap between basic animal groups was referred to as the "Missing Link", and it has maintained that title or identity ever since! As long as the link between the lower and higher classes of life is missing, the Theory of Evolution will always be only a theory which cannot be proven! See Figure 2 for a logical representation of this conclusion.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FIGURE 2. THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION CANNOT BE PROVED.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Missing Link Logical Argument



Let:	toep 		=> the theory of evolution is provable
	low-to-high	=> the evolutionary path from lower to higher classes can be 
                           identified (hence, no Missing Link).


Using logical syntax, we can say:


1.  If  (toep) is true, then (low-to-high) is true.
	[If the Theory of Evolution can be proved, then there is not a Missing Link]


This argument can be turned around to say:


2.  If not(low-to-high) is true, then not(toep) is true.
	[If there is a Missing Link, then the Theory of Evolution cannot be proved.]


3.  Conclusion:  not(toep) is true.  The Theory of Evolution is not provable.  It is 
                 ONLY a theory. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Despite this obvious weakness in the theory, however, Mr. Darwin made three statements along with the above findings. First, he said that the world had been preparing for the advent of man for a long time. He, in one breath, confessed that the theory is incomplete, hence unproved, but he countered with a statement which very much implied that the theory is complete and very provable. His reference to a long time is a clear indication to the millions or even billions of years which would have been required for that first one-celled animal in the lagoon-like environment to evolve into the first man.

Next, he made a statement about the consequences of any single link in this chain not existing. His conclusion was that humans would not have been exactly as they are. Once again, he was not approaching this theory as an open-minded scientist. He had already made up his mind. In this particular discourse, he was merely trying to persuade his reader that his theory is valid even though the supporting data did not substantiate that conclusion. After having made that second remark, his closing comment clearly revealed his overall intention, as he told his reader to not feel ashamed of his origin. Darwin was a total evolutionist and not one given to compromise! His were not the words and sentiments of a man who was about to back away from such a highly controversial and non-provable belief.

After more than one hundred years of study and research, the Theory of Evolution is still not proven. Why? Because the Missing Link alluded to above still has not been found! Not only that, but some additional problems with this theory have now been found. Two researchers, Sir Fred Hoyle and Professor Chandra Wickramasinghe, in their work Science and the Divine Origin of Life, have taken exception with the lagoon-like environment which according to theorists would have been necessary for life to begin. In reporting their findings, Mr. Wickramasinghe explains how they arrived at their important conclusion [4].

First, the author tells about their search for the right conditions on earth, those which might have contributed to the existence of that lagoon-like, organic soup environment. The lagoon would have been an aid to preserving life, while the organic soup would have been necessary for actually creating it. But he says that those conditions could not be found! In a discussion about atmospheric conditions, he explains that a deficit of oxygen would have been essential for the ideal evolutionary environment to occur. Yet, all they could find was evidence to the contrary, an atmosphere which was full of oxygen. Their conclusion was that the right atmosphere does not now exist, but in addition to that, their study convinced them that it never could have! Later, in the same work, these gentlemen went on to say that the chance of life actually beginning on earth, exactly as the evolutionists claim, is only one chance in ten raised to the forty-thousandth power of chances [5]!

Ten raised to the forty-thousandth power is the number one followed by forty thousand zeroes. This is an incredibly large number! By comparison, one million is the number one followed by six zeroes, or ten raised to the sixth power. If the above statistic is even close to being correct, then the probability of a valid Theory of Evolution is so low as to make the whole theory almost completely unbelievable. If these two scientists are correct, then the Theory of Evolution is totally absurd! One would have a greater chance of smashing an automobile into a solid three-foot thick, brick wall at sixty miles per hour and not do any damage to the wall, car, or those in the car than of being evolved!

Hence, the above two researchers, as has just been seen, seriously question whether the lagoon-like environment could have ever existed. Their conclusion is that it could not have! Yet, the evidence against this theory continues to mount. In Darwin's Enigma, Mr. Luther D. Sunderland reveals his concern about the lack of a fossil record. In so doing, he writes about the aggravation among those scientists who feel that they have been betrayed by proponents of evolution. According to the author, a host of those scientists had once been led to accept the theory as fact. Then, they learned that they had been fooled by a lack of credible data. He goes on to discuss the lack of a fossil record and to show how that missing evidence has cast grave doubt on the whole theory [6]. The author shares that Mr. Darwin knew in his day that the fossil record was weak. The early evolutionist had hoped that the problem would be resolved over time. However, such a magical fix for this scientifically weak, ailing theory has not yet happened!

Consequently, notice what Mr. Sunderland is saying! Because of the lack of fossil evidence, no one can really say that life has actually come from a common ancestor. Mr. Darwin, in The Descent of Man, made essentially the same comment over one hundred years ago, and in the years since, nothing of consequence has changed! Therefore, what is left? In my mind, the lack of quality evidence reduces the Theory of Evolution to nothing more than mere conjecture. The idea of human life evolving from some earlier, much more primitive life form might sound good and even seem reasonable. But according to Mr. Sunderland, many scientists have already begun backing away from this belief because of its obvious theoretical shortcomings. Thus, the Theory of Evolution belongs back on the shelf, at least until evolutionists can find better, more credible evidence.

On the shelf is where this theory belongs. Yet, today in classrooms across our land, the Theory of Evolution is alive and well! In 1964, my high school Biology teacher taught this scientific version of Creation. However, his instruction never emphasized that the lessons were based on conjecture or unsubstantiated beliefs. In other words, he focused more on the "evolution" part and less on the "theory" part.

I remember hearing about human beings belonging in the Animal class. I recall separating different life forms into groups, species, classes, and subclasses, and I remember being told to learn these things for the test! No one ever told our class that we were studying material which may or may not be true. Even more, no one to my knowledge ever questioned the theory's authenticity. We were simply young students trying to make a grade. We sat, we listened, and we learned! Unfortunately, what we learned was probably not true. We were misled by a very clever adversary, and that same deception is still occurring today! See Table 3.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table 3. Problems with the Theory of Evolution.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again in his book, Mr. Sunderland makes a disturbing observation about the present-day proponents of the Theory of Evolution. He writes of their willingness to accept a theory which they cannot prove [7]. These scientists have been persistent in their assumption that life formed spontaneously from a single cell and then that that life continued to reproduce itself and breed new species and classes. Not only that, but they have taught and even today teach that the world somehow received human life from all of that evolutionary activity and that that life was, then, somehow complete with an incredible source of knowledge and intelligence.

To accommodate for the slim probability that a lagoon-like environment ever existed, plus to write off the lack of a fossil record, evolutionists, with the help of cosmologists, have now even tried to suggest that the earliest forms of life may have originated somewhere in Space, as long as four billion years ago [8]. Hence, while evolution may remain a fascinating belief, there is very little credible data to actually back it up.

Unfortunately, rather than share the complete truth, the scientific community and educators have actually been guilty of misleading the public. They have presented a fascinating belief, but one which lacks solid evidence, and then left it for people like you and me to pick up the pieces and fill in the blanks. As a result of such persistence, these agents of the system around us have promoted this Theory of Evolution belief and, in my mind, all but compromised their own integrity. A theory is something which has not been proven. It is only suspected or hypothesized.

Once a theory can be proven, then it becomes a theorem. In the case of the Theory of Evolution, while it is in fact still called a theory, many scientists have treated it as truth. As a result, educators have picked up the message and carried it straight to the classroom, again suggesting that this unproven instruction can be trusted. To go along with these already deceitful tactics, the entertainment industry, not to be left out, has gotten its hands on this same unproven message and also propagated it even further by carrying it across the air waves. Thus, the result in this country and even the world has been and is massive brainwashing! In my opinion, such behavior is academic fraud and deceit, plus a form of system-level deception which has been taken to its highest and most destructive form.